1

Specific Learning Disabilities Evaluation Procedures

January, 2013

Adapted from Kalamazoo RESA Procedures/March 2009 and the Michigan Criteria for Determining the Existence of a Specific Learning Disability/November 2009

This manual is has been adopted by the Tri-County Superintendents group of the EUPISD in cooperation with the EUPEPA, EUPSPA, AC and CRTs groups as a guidance document designed to assist in the planning and implementation of eligibility determinations for students suspected of having a Specific Learning Disability (SLD).

2

Table of Contents

Page Introduction and Background ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3

Who Evaluates?.............................................................................................................................................. 4

Evaluation process …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Response to Intervention (RTI) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) …………………………………………………………………………… Selecting the Evaluation Process ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Evaluation Plan ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Documentation of Eligibility ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

4

5

5

6

7

8

Suggested Questions for Parent Input for Initial Evaluation …………………………………

10

Teacher Input for Student Assistance Team Worksheet ………………………………..……

13

Worksheet for Charting Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses, Suggested Guidelines

for Determining Strengths and Weakness, and Examples of Published Assessments ……….

Assessment Type Chart ………………………………………………………………………

17

18

Worksheet to Determine Appropriate Instruction …………………………………………...

19

Exclusionary Factors Worksheet for SLD …………………………………………………...

20

Technical Assistance Section

PLAAFP ………………………………………………………………………………….

Observations

Local Guidance Regarding Selections of RtI/PSW …………………………………….....

21

22

3

Evaluation for Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD)

INTRODUCTION: The EUPISD is committed to the provision of a quality education for all students and the continuous

improvement of local educational systems. The EUPISD strives to assist and empower districts to

provide high-quality teaching and learning experiences for all students, in all grades, in all classrooms in

Michigan. The EUPISD believes that effective core instructional programs, services, evidence-based

interventions, data-driven decision-making, and positive behavioral approaches should be available to

all students, and intervention resources should be accessible, based on each individual student's intensity

of need. To ensure the provision of a quality education for all of EUP students, schools need the

guidance and the tools necessary to identify individual student needs.

BACKGROUND: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 2001 changed the landscape of education in

the United States. The ESEA of 2001 established a heightened emphasis on the immediate and

continuous improvement of our educational systems and focused improvement efforts on state and local

accountability, student outcomes, parent involvement, data-driven planning and systems, and the use of

scientific, research-based methods and interventions. The reauthorization of the IDEA (Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act) in 2004 introduced a new and deliberate effort to connect federal special

education legislation with federal general education legislation the ESEA. This deliberate effort has

resulted in an IDEA that embraces the used of data-driven decision-making processes and new

educational methods based on scientific research. The use of data-driven decision-making processes

includes the IDEA requirements for determining a student's eligibility for special education programs

and services.

In Michigan, prior to the 2004 reauthorization of the IDEA, the identification of a student suspected to

have an SLD was based on a single specific method as defined in the MARSE (Michigan Administrative

Rules for Special Education). That method was the severe discrepancy model. The 2004 reauthorization

of the IDEA expressly prohibits all states from requiring the use of the severe discrepancy model. As a

result, the MARSE were revised in 2006. The new MARSE for determining SLD eligibility provides

schools with choices. Those choices include the use of methods for determining SLD eligibility based on

the use of scientific, research-based interventions and patterns of strengths and weaknesses. The need to

develop new methods for determining SLD eligibility is the driving force behind development of these

new criteria.

WHAT IS A SLD? A specific learning disability is "a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved

in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability

to listen, think, speak, read, writing, spell, or do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as

perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia that

adversely affects a student's educational performance. A SLD does not include learning problems that

are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities; mental retardation; emotional

disturbance; or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage." (34 CFR § 300.8(c)(10).

4

WHO EVALUATES FOR DETERMINATION OF SLD ELIGIBILITY? In compliance with the MARSE, a Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team (MET) conducts a full and

individual evaluation of a student suspected to have an SLD. The MET, based upon its evaluation of the

student, then makes its recommendation of eligibility to the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) team.

The student's IEP team then determines SLD eligibility (R 340.1713).

WHAT PROCESS OF EVALUATION WILL BE USED TO DETERMINE SLD ELIGIBILITY?

The revised MARSE allows the following two processes for determining eligibility:

1) Response to scientific, research based intervention. Depending on the local district’s

practice, this process may have a variety of names; e.g., Instructional Consultation Team, Response

to Intervention, Michigan’s Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative (MiBLSi). The

Michigan Department of Education (MDE) does not mandate any specific scientific, research-based

intervention process.

Response to scientific, research-based intervention (RtI):

The federal regulations do not specify what research based interventions must be used, and

leave the State with flexibility to determine criteria to best meet local needs. Resources such

as the Florida Center for Reading Research, at: www.fcrr.org, provide a listing of current

research based interventions. Guidance on research based practices may also be found in

Response to Intervention: Enhancing the Learning of All Children, published by the

Michigan Assoc. of Administrators of Special Education.

MiBLSi

Michigan’s Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative (MiBLSi) is an initiative

through the Michigan Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Early

Intervention Services and helps schools create a “culture” where staff teaches academic

success and behavior success. EUPISD staffs in MiBLSi Schools are trained to:

1. Monitor student reading and behavior performance

Access dynamic data collection systems that provide staff with performance

indicators in reading and behavior that are accurate and timely – for example, the

School Wide Information System (SWIS™) and the Dynamic Indicators of Basic

Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS™).

2. Make decisions based on data

Develop and implement reading and behavior interventions using student

performance indicators

Evaluate intervention effectiveness through ongoing data collection and progress

monitoring

The use of a fully implemented MiBLSi process meets the standard for SLD evaluation

utilizing the RTI option in the area of Basic Reading Skills

5

2) Pattern of strengths and weaknesses. “The MDE does not mandate any specific process to

determine a pattern of strengths and weaknesses. Any determination of SLD requires a full

comprehensive evaluation according to the evaluation procedures in the federal regulations at

§300.301 – §300.311, including those particular to a student suspected of having a SLD in

§300.307 – §300.311.”

Pattern of strengths and weaknesses:

Determining a pattern of strengths and weaknesses is the second option described by federal

regulations. This option, although not required, may be used in districts when an RtI option is

not appropriate or feasible. RtI often requires that the district systematically implement the

methodology over a period of time, establish district norms and determine procedures for

providing Tier 2 and 3 interventions. At this time, RtI is not possible for all areas included in the

SLD definition. Also, there may be students arriving in the district in need of evaluation who

have not had the opportunity to be evaluated with reference to a systematic intervention process.

The pattern of strengths and weaknesses alternative is based on assessment and a review of

achievement scores and performance in a variety of academic areas, with documentation of

patterns of strength as compared to other areas where the student demonstrates a pattern of

significant academic concerns, relative to the child’s expected abilities. Assessment documents

the student’s performance and achievement related to Michigan standards and benchmarks either

at the student’s age level, or assigned grade level. As with RtI, assessment includes review of

research based interventions and student achievement on State approved content.

Districts must establish local standards for implementing either an RtI process or establishing a

pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW). The EUPISD has provided a decision making

structure, as defined in this manual. Parameters for assessment results are provided as a way of

standardizing PSW decision making within and among school districts.

Note regarding consideration of a

severe discrepancy:

Severe discrepancy may be used a

consideration of eligibility utilizing

the PSW model, however, the

continued use of severe discrepancy

as the primary factor in determining

eligibility is not in compliance with

the MARSE or IDEA.

6

Selecting Response to Intervention (RtI) or Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW)

As noted above, decision-making on which process to use to document achievement and learning needs

will depend on district policies, status of RtI implementation; staff training, specific areas of concern,

length of time the child has attended district programming, and grade level interventions. The following

rules are suggested in determining whether to use RtI or PSW in establishing achievement levels and

documenting interventions:

Rule #1: If you have the ability to use the RtI option, this is the default approach

District policies support the use of the RtI as an intervention approach; and,

District implementation reflects the 8 core principles (see manual introduction).

Rule #2: Use PSW if:

RtI is not being used or is not fully implemented in the skill area of suspected disability

RtI is not being used or is not fully implemented at the child’s grade level

The parent requests a special education evaluation and will not extend timelines to accommodate

recommended implementation of tier interventions and timelines.

Once a decision has been made as to which process to use, this choice by the IEP team should be

reflected on the Review of Existing Evaluation Data (REED) form.

The following criteria apply to all methods used to determine SLD eligibility:

A student must not be determined to be a student with a disability if the determinant factor for

that determination is:

o lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading

instruction (as defined in section 1208(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education

Act). [including explicit and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics,

vocabulary development, reading fluency and oral reading skills, and reading

comprehension strategies];

o lack of appropriate instruction in math; or limited English proficiency.

In interpreting evaluation data for the purpose of determining if a student is a student with a disability as

defined in 34 CFR § 300.8, and the educational needs of the student, each public agency must:

draw upon information from a variety of sources, including aptitude and achievement tests,

parent input, teacher recommendations, as well as, information about the student's physical

condition, social or cultural background, and adaptive behavior; and

ensure that information obtained from all of these sources is documented and carefully

considered.

The process of evaluation requires a synthesis of all available assessment information. A student's

parents are an integral part of the evaluation process, including providing information about the student.

Parents are members of the IEP team meeting held for the purpose of determining eligibility,

determining the educational needs of the student, and development of the student's IEP. Parents provide

valuable insight and information to teams who conduct assessments in order to complete full and

individual evaluations.

7

THE EVALUATION PLAN Use the Review of Existing Evaluation Data (REED) document to develop and implement the evaluation

plan for a student suspected to have a SLD. The REED document provides guidance and a general

framework for the development of both initial evaluations and reevaluations, and can be used with both

the response to scientific, research-based interventions and the pattern of strengths and weaknesses

processes.

Within a systemic plan, it is essential to include a data-driven, decision-making process based on each

individual student's needs.

Begin the development of an evaluation plan for determining SLD eligibility by collecting all pertinent

data. The data used will be dependent upon the process (or processes) currently used in the district (and

specific schools) for determining the existence of a SLD:

.

Note regarding Initiation of Evaluations and Timelines:

Michigan rules, which specify 30 school days from consent for evaluation to holding an IEP

meeting, must be followed unless the parent and district mutually agree to extend the

timeline. This request can be made in the event that the evaluation will address response to

intervention after the request for an evaluation.

Although extended evaluation timelines may be requested in order to implement appropriate

interventions and collect data on the student’s response, if a parent does not agree to

extending the timeline, then the evaluation must proceed and an IEP team meeting convened

within the 30 school days allowed under state rules. Whether eligibility can be determined

will depend on whether the IEP team has the necessary rule-in, rule-out, and documentation

data required for SLD identification.

Note-

Evaluation of current data and further evaluation must establish and document:

Inadequate achievement relative either to age level or grade level standards.

Appropriate instruction

Federal rule specifies that eligibility evaluation must address the age appropriate instruction

that the student has received and the achievement of the student related to grade level

standards. Although age is one variable, the emphasis on state approved grade level

standards reflects the priority that all instruction for students address grade level content

standards.

Although the federal regulations do not define standards for “appropriate instruction”, the

USDOE does note that such instruction has the following characteristics:

Scientifically research based

Provided by qualified personnel

Student progress data is systematically collected and analyzed

8

§ 300.311 Documentation for Specific Learning Disability Determination

§ 300.311 provides a checklist for required elements of a written report documenting the evaluation

team’s decision regarding eligibility of SLD.

Documentation must include:

1. Statement of eligibility, or lack of eligibility, for specific learning disability

2. Basis for the determination of eligibility

3. Assurance that during the determination process the district:

a. Collected information from a variety of sources, including aptitude and achievement

tests, parent input and teacher recommendations, information about the child’s physical

condition, social or cultural background and adaptive behavior.

b. Documented and carefully considered information obtained from a variety of sources.

4. Relevant behavior noted in observations, and the relationship of the behavior to the child’s

academic functioning.

5. Relevant medical findings.

6. Achievement measured to age expectations or state-approved grade level standards.

7. Progress monitoring related to age or grade level standards.

Or

8. Determination of a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement or both,

relative to age, State-approved grade level standards or intellectual development.

9. Determination of exclusionary factors

10. If the child participated in a process that assesses the child’s response to scientific, research-

based (or, if necessary, best practice) interventions, documentation of:

a. Instructional strategies utilized

b. Student-centered data collected

c. Parent notification about:

i. State policies regarding RtI criteria- data and services requirements (Note: the

SLD rule, R 340.1713, is Michigan’s policy.)

ii. Strategies used for increasing the student’s rate of learning

iii. Parent right to request an evaluation.

11. Evaluation team members and parent must certify whether the report reflects the members’

conclusion.

a. Members in disagreement must submit a separate statement presenting dissenting

conclusions.

9

SLD Evaluation Resources

Page

Suggested Questions for Parent Input for Evaluation

10

Teacher Input for Student Assistance Team Worksheet

13

Worksheet for Charting Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses, Suggested Guidelines for

Determining Strengths and Weakness, and Examples of Published Assessments

Assessment Type Chart

17

18

Worksheet to Determine Appropriate Instruction

19

Exclusionary Factors Worksheet for SLD

20

Technical Assistance Section

PLAAFP

Observations

Local Guidance regarding selections of RTI/PSW

21

21

22

10

Suggested Questions for Parent Input for Evaluation

Student’s Name: ____________ Parent/Guardian Name: ________________ Date: __________

Method of Interview (Check one): Personal Interview Telephone Written

1. What are some of your child’s strengths, interests, and/or favorite activities? _____________________________________________________________________________

2. Do you have any concerns about your child’s progress in school? Yes No If yes, what are they when did you first notice these concerns? _____________________________________________________________________________

3. Have you seen any recent changes in your child’s behavior or school performance? Yes No If yes, please explain: _____________________________________________________________________________

4. Was your child born prematurely? Yes No If yes, how early?

_____________________________________________________________________________

5. Did you experience any complications during your pregnancy or during delivery? Yes No

If yes, please explain:

_____________________________________________________________________________

6. Did your child have any health problems or other medical conditions at birth? Yes No

If yes, please explain:

_____________________________________________________________________________

7. Please list all substances used one or more times during pregnancy:

Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Cocaine Heroin Opiates

LSD Ecstasy PCP Meth Prescription Painkillers

Other: ______________________________________________________________________ 8. Did your child’s doctors express any concerns about developmental delays (including delays in crawling,

walking, toileting, talking, or language use)? Yes No If yes, which developmental milestones were delayed?

_____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________

9. Does your child have any history of vision problems? Yes No If yes, please explain:

_________________________________________________________________ ____________

Does your child wear glasses? Yes No

10. Does your child have any history of vision problems? Yes No

If yes, please explain:

_________________________________________________________________ ____________

Does your child have a hearing aide? Yes No

11. Does your child have any history of seizures? Yes No

If yes, please explain:

_________________________________________________________________ ____________

11

12. Does your child have any history of head injuries? Yes No

If yes, please explain:

______________________________________________________________________________

13. Does your child have any history of ear infections? Yes No

If yes, at what age did they begin? ________ At what age did they end? ____________________

How many times per year did he or she have ear infections? _____________________________

14. Does your child take medication? Yes No

If yes, what medications does he or she take (please include the dosage as well)?

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________

15. Any other medical/health concerns?

_____________________________________________________________________________

16. Is there a history of learning problems/academic difficulty in your family (such as dyslexia, learning disabilities,

or difficulty in certain subjects in school)? Yes No If yes, please explain: _____________________________________________________________________________ 17. Is there a history of mental illness in your family (such as ADHD, Depression, Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia,

Anxiety, etc.)? Yes No If yes, please explain: _____________________________________________________________________________

18. Has your child had a psychological or education evaluation from outside of the school? Yes No If yes, who did it, when was it done, and what were the results?

_____________________________________________________________________________

19. Has your child had additional community services in the last 3 years (tutoring, counseling, residential care)?

Yes No If yes, please explain: _____________________________________________________________________________ 20. What schools has your child attended? For which grades did your child attend that school? School: _____________________ Grade: ____________________ School: _____________________ Grade: ____________________ School: _____________________ Grade: ____________________ School: _____________________ Grade: ____________________ School: _____________________ Grade: ____________________

21. Has your child missed more than 10 days of school in a single year? Yes No If yes, which years and why? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

22. Does your child have any sleeping problems? Yes No

12

If yes, please explain:

____________________________________________________________________________________

23. Does your child have any problems with his or her diet or appetite? Yes No

If yes, please explain:

____________________________________________________________________________________

24. Have there been any significant changes in your home or family relationships recently? Yes No If yes, please explain: ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________

25. Is there any other information about your child that you think may be helpful to your child’s evaluation? Yes

No If yes, what? _________________________________________________________________________

13

Hello Mr./Mrs. ,

As part of the evaluation process for special education eligibility, the Student Assistance Team

must collect data from a variety of sources regarding the academic progress of the referred student.

Please complete the following two-page form by answering all questions for which data is available.

Only one form is necessary per student, even if multiple areas of eligibility are suspected. Your input as

a teacher is highly valued, and by answering as many of the questions on the form as you can, we are

able to make the most appropriate decision regarding the student’s eligibility.

To help you complete the worksheet, a checklist of the necessary data is provided below:

DATA SOURCE Check if

Completed Any Available Curriculum-Based Measurement/Benchmarking/Progress Monitoring Data (DIBELS Next, DIBELS 6

th Edition, AIMSweb, Observation Survey)

Spring GLAD Scores

DRA Score

MEAP Scores

Behavioral Information

Academic Strengths and Weaknesses

Attempted Strategies

Grades Print-Outs from Computerized Record System (e.g., PowerSchool, Skyward, Infinite Campus) Attached

Attendance Report Print-Outs from Computerized Record System (e.g., PowerSchool, Skyward, Infinite Campus) Attached

Intervention Records and Child Study Minutes Attached

If you have questions about how to complete this form, please see the Eastern Upper Peninsula

Intermediate School District website (www.eup.k12.mi.us) and click the SAT Form Video link under the

Special Education tab.

Thank you,

14

TEACHER SAT WORKSHEET

This is a working document for the SAT process Student’s Name: ____________________________________ Student’s Grade: __________ Teacher’s Name: ____________________________________ School Year: ______________ CATEGORY OR CATEGORIES OF ELIGIBILITY SUSPECTED: Basic Reading Math Calculation Oral Expression Reading Fluency Math Problem Solving Listening Comprehension Reading Comprehension Written Expression

I. ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT REGARDING GRADE-LEVEL EXPECTATIONS To complete this section, please report any available data collected from the following Curriculum-Based Measurements and Criterion-Referenced Assessments: DIBELS, AIMSweb, the Observation Survey, DRA, and GLAD. Data from at least one of these sources must be available in order to determine eligibility for special education services.

● Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM)/Benchmark Screening/Progress Monitoring: Assessment used: DIBELS Next DIBELS 6

th edition AIMSweb Observation Survey

DIBELS Next, DIBELS 6

th edition, AIMSweb, and the Observation Survey all include multiple subtests (listed

below). Please mark any subtests for which data has been collected:

DIBELS® NEXT SUBTESTS First Sound Fluency Letter Naming Fluency

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Nonsense Word Fluency

Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) DAZE

Word Use Fluency Retell Fluency

DIBELS 6th

EDITION SUBTESTS Initial Sound Fluency Letter-Naming Fluency

Oral Reading Fluency Nonsense Word Fluency

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Word Use Fluency

Retell Fluency

AIMSWEB® SUBTESTS Reading – Curriculum Based Measurement (R-CBM) Reading – MAZE

Reading – Pathway Passage Test of Early Literacy – Letter Naming Fluency

Test of Early Literacy – Letter-Sound Fluency Test of Early Literacy – Phoneme Segmentation Fluency

Test of Early Literacy – Nonsense Word Fluency Spelling – Curriculum-Based Measurement

Written Expression – Correct Word Sequence (WE-CWS)

Written Expression – Words Spelled Correct (WE-WSC)

Written Expression – Total Words Written (WE-TWW) Math Computation (M-COMP)

Math Concepts and Applications (M-CAP) Test of Early Numeracy – Missing Number

Test of Early Numeracy – Quantity Discrimination Test of Early Numeracy – Number Identification

Test of Early Numeracy – Oral Counting

OBSERVATION SURVEY (For Reading Recovery® Students) Text Reading Letter Identification

Word Test Concepts about Print

Writing Vocabulary Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words

15

Was this data collected one time for screening/benchmarking purposes or was it collected continuously for progress monitoring purposes? One time for screening/benchmarking Continuously for progress monitoring purposes If this data was collected one time for screening/benchmarking purposes, please report the date that each subtest was administered as well as the student’s score (please include each subtest for which data is available):

Subtest Administered: _____________ Date: ___________ Student Score ___________ Subtest Administered: _____________ Date: ___________ Student Score ___________ Subtest Administered: _____________ Date: ___________ Student Score ___________ Subtest Administered: _____________ Date: ___________ Student Score ___________ Subtest Administered: _____________ Date: ___________ Student Score ___________ Subtest Administered: _____________ Date: ___________ Student Score ___________

If this data was collected continuously across multiple weeks for progress monitoring purposes Please, please report the date and student’s score:

Subtest Administered: _____________

Week Number/Date Student Score

Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Week 5

Week 6

Week 7

Week 8

Week 9

Spring GLAD Score: ELA ____________ (Please report Spring score only) Spring GLAD Score: Math ___________ (Please report Spring score only)

DRA Date administered: _______ DRA Student’s score: ___ (Please report score rather than grade level)

II. MEAP SCORE for SCHOOL YEAR: Reading: ___________

This score is at: Level 1 or 2 (Strength) Level 3 or 4 (Weakness) N/A MEAP SCORE for SCHOOL YEAR: Mathematics: ___________ This score is at: Level 1 or 2 (Strength) Level 3 or 4 (Weakness) N/A MEAP SCORE for SCHOOL YEAR: Writing: ___________ This score is at: Level 1 or 2 (Strength) Level 3 or 4 (Weakness) N/A

III. BEHAVIORAL INFORMATION – RATE EACH ITEM

Usually Sometimes Seldom/Never N/A

On time for class

Brings necessary materials

Turns in completed assignments

Turns in assignments on time

Willing to make up assignments

Follows teacher’s directions

Attends to lecture discussion

Stays on task during work time

Appropriate peer interactions

Appropriate teacher interactions

16

IV. ACADEMIC STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES – PLEASE RATE EACH ITEM

Please check the box that best indicates your perception of the student’s skills in each area compared to the rest of your class.

Bottom 10% of My Class Between the Bottom 10% and Bottom 30% of My Class

Skills are Higher than the Bottom 30% of my Class

Basic Reading Skills

Reading Fluency

Reading Comprehension

Mathematics Calculations

Mathematical Problem-Solving

Written Expression

Oral Expression

Listening Comprehension

V. ATTEMPTED STRATEGIES: Please check all that apply.

General Review Modify Environment Modify Presentation Modify Curriculum/Homework

Modify Expectations

Review cumulative file Talk with parents Talk with previous teacher Seek peer help Classroom assessment Other:

Change seating arrangement Provide quiet space Provide a larger space Encourage work breaks Other:

Pre-teach Extra practice Guided practice Change pacing Extra feedback Provide patterns Vary materials Increase instructional time Positive reinforce Other:

Change task size Provide computer Provide calculator Use visual/manipulatives Change instruction Provide a model Other:

Group product Individual product Extended time Tutor/mentor Alternate response emphasize quality over quantity Other:

VI. RECORD OF STUDENT’S GRADES FROM POWERSCHOOL, SKYWARD, OR INFINITE CAMPUS

Please print the student’s grades thus far from your school’s computerized records database and attach them to this form

VII. RECORD OF STUDENT’S ATTENDANCE FROM POWERSCHOOL, SKYWARD, OR INFINITE CAMPUS Please print the student’s attendance record from your schools computerized records database and attach them to this form

VIII. INTERVENTION RECORDS AND CHILD STUDY MINUTES

Please print the intervention records and child study minutes and attach them to this form

17

Worksheet for Charting Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses

Academic achievement

with respect to grade-

level expectations.

Academic

achievement

with respect

to age-level

expectations.

Classroom performance with respect to

grade-level expectations.

Age-

appropriate

functional /

intellectual

skills

Progress

monitoring,

CBM

screening

or criterion-

referenced

assessments

MEAP

Norm-

referenced

achievement

tests

Curriculum

assessments Grades

Teacher

report

Classroom

observation

Observation,

interviews,

IQ

assessment

Basic

Reading S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W

S N W

Reading

Fluency S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W

Reading

Comp. S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W

Math

Calc. S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W

Math Prob.

Solving S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W

Written

Express. S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W

Oral

Express. S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W

Listening

Comp. S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W

S = Strength Area(s) of Strength (at least 3 ‘S’ checks for each area): _________________________

N = Neither Strength/Weakness Area(s) of Weakness (at least 4 ‘W’ checks for each area, including at least 1 individually

W = Weakness administered academic achievement assessment): _______________________

Suggested Guidelines for Determining Strengths and Weakness

Assessment Type Strength Weakness

Progress monitoring Meeting / exceeding aimline Falling below aimline for at least 4

consecutive weeks on most recent tests.

CBM (Benchmark) screening At 30th percentile compared to national

norms.

At 30th percentile compared to national

norms.

Criterion-referenced assessment Skills at or above grade level Skills well below grade level

MEAP Level 1 or Level 2 Level 3 or Level 4

Norm-referenced tests

(Achievement, IQ) Percentile rank ≥ 30 Percentile rank ≤ 9

Curriculum assessments Scores ≥ 80% Scores ≤ 60%

Grades A / B or

‘meets / exceeds’ expectations

D / E or

‘does not meet’ expectations

Teacher report

Based upon professional judgment of

teacher in comparing student to others in

classroom; class rank ≥ 30th percentile

Based upon professional judgment of

teacher in comparing student to others in

classroom; class rank ≤ 9th percentile

Observations – Academic

Student demonstrates average

understanding of academic content in

comparison to other students in classroom.

Student demonstrates that s/he does not

understand the academic content.

Observations/Interviews/Scales - Functional

Student demonstrates typical functional

skills in comparison to other students the

same age or in the same grade. Percentile

rank on scale ≥ 30.

Most of the student’s functional skills

appear to be well below average in

comparison to other students the same age

or in the same grade. Percentile rank on

scale ≤ 9.

18

Examples of Published Assessments

(This is not a complete list)

Assessment Type Examples:

Progress monitoring, Benchmark screening DIBELS, AIMSweb, Observation Survey

Criterion-referenced assessments MEAP, GLAD, DRA, other district assessments and

classroom tests

Norm-referenced achievement tests WRMT-3/NU, KeyMath 3, KTEA-2, WIAT-3, WJ-

3/NU, DAB-3, OWLS-II, GORT-5, TERA-3, TEMA-3,

TOWL-4, TOLD:P-4, TOLD:I-4, TWS-4, TerraNova,

Brigance

IQ tests WISC-4, WAIS-4, KABC-2, CTONI-2, KBIT-2, WASI-

2, DP-3

Curriculum assessments MEAP, GLAD, DRA other district assessments and

classroom tests

Adaptive/functional behavior scales Adaptive Behavior Assessment System-2, Adaptive

Behavior Inventory, AAMR Adaptive Behavior Scale-

School, Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-2, Behavior

Assessment Scale for Children-2

19

Worksheet to Determine Appropriate Instruction

Elements of Instruction Evidence of Effectiveness Other Evidence of Effectiveness

What

Documented curriculum School district has a written curriculum that is aligned with State

content expectations.

At least 80% of all of the school

district’s students within a grade are

meeting district or state standards after

being instructed with the district’s core

instructional program.

At least 80% of students using an

intervention within the school have

showed improved progress.

Observations of interventions during the

evaluation period indicate that they are

being implemented with fidelity.

Core/intervention curriculum materials

Materials systematically teach and review skills and have scientific-

research evidence of effectiveness. (See Worksheet for Evaluating

Explicit Instruction and Systematic Curriculum)

Reading Instruction emphasizes the following big ideas: phonemic awareness,

phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.

Math

Instruction emphasizes the following big ideas: conceptual

understanding, computational and procedural fluency, fact fluency

and problem solving skills.

Writing

Instruction emphasizes the following areas: basic mechanics and

conventions, the content aspects of writing that convey meaning, and

higher-level cognitive processes involved in planning and revising.

Oral Expression Instruction emphasizes the use of syntax, semantics and morphology.

Listening Comprehension Instruction emphasizes the understanding of syntax, semantics and

morphology.

Who Teacher Qualifications Teacher meets NCLB highly qualified standards and has been trained

to use the curriculum materials.

How

Instructional techniques/strategies

When teaching new skills, teacher uses explicit instructional

techniques. (See Worksheet for Evaluating Explicit Instruction and

Systematic Curriculum)

Differentiated/tiered instruction

Students are provided with the appropriate intensity of instruction to

meet their individual needs. All students receive core instruction,

some students receive targeted, strategic instruction, and a few

students receive targeted intensive instruction.

Fidelity of instructional implementation

There is documentation that the core and intervention programs are

implemented with fidelity. (See Program/Instruction Fidelity

Checklist)

Assessments / Use of data

School screens all students three times a year to assess their progress.

Students receiving strategic interventions are assessed

weekly/monthly with formative assessments (e.g., progress

monitoring tests) and students receiving intensive interventions

(through general or special education) are assessed weekly. Schools

regularly use assessment data to evaluate their instructional programs

and modify accordingly.

20

EXCLUSIONARY FACTORS WORKSHEET Specific Learning Disability

Mark each exclusionary factor. Each factor must be ruled out as the PRIMARY FACTOR for the student’s inability to progress in the general education curriculum.

Yes No

1. Lack of instruction in essential components of reading and math

Does information obtained during assessment indicate lack of appropriate instruction in reading and math as the determinant factor in this student’s inability to progress in the general education curriculum? Report Page _____

2. Limited English Proficiency

Answer the following questions

Is there a language other than English spoken by this student?

Is there a language other than English spoken by the student’s home?

Are there any specific dialect or cultural influences that would affect the student’s ability to speak or understand English?

Is limited English proficiency the primary reason for the student’s deficit scores? Rpt. Page_______

3. Cognitive Impairment

Document all information gathered in assessment that would exclude cognitive impairment as the determinant factor for this student’s academic deficits.

Do you have evidence, through interviews, observations and/or testing that the student has a cognitive impairment? Report Page ______

4. Emotional Impairment

Document all information gathered in assessment that would exclude emotional impairment as the determinant factor for this student’s academic deficits.

Does the student exhibit emotional difficulties that interfere with learning?

Does the student have a medical history and/or school history of emotional difficulties?

Is emotional disturbance the primary reason for the student’s deficit scores? Rpt. Page_______

5. Vision, Hearing, or Motor Impairments

Document all information gathered in assessment that would exclude vision, hearing, or motor impairments as the determinant factor for this student’s academic deficits.

Do vision screening results indicate concern?

Do hearing screening results indicate concern?

Does the student have a history of significantly delayed motor development?

Is visual, hearing or motor disability the primary reason for the student’s deficit scores? Rpt. Pg. ___

6. Environmental, Cultural, or Economic Disadvantage

Document all information gathered in assessment that would exclude environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage as the determinant factor for this student’s academic deficits.

a. Lack of Opportunity

Does the assessment data indicate that lack of opportunity to learn due to environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage is not the cause of the student’s academic deficits?

b. Motivational Factors

Does the student attempt classroom assignments and/or homework?

If no, is the student’s performance on grade level during classroom activities?

Are group achievement scores consistent with the student’s grades?

Does information gathered indicate lack of motivation is the determinant factor?

c. Situational Trauma

Has the student’s academic performance fallen dramatically within the last 6-12 months?

Is there knowledge of any situations within the student’s family that would contribute to a drop in academic performance?

Does information gathered indicate situational trauma is the determinant factor?

d. Attendance

Does the student have a high absentee rate either due to illness, disciplinary issues or other factors?

Does information gathered indicate that absences are the determinant factor?

Are environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage the primary reason for the student’s academic deficits? Report page _____

21

Technical Assistance

PLAAFP

The evaluation provides the basis for further instruction by establishing the present level of academic

achievement and functional performance (PLAAFP), which includes:

1. Data and other specific descriptive information on the student’s current academic performance,

indicating both strengths and areas of need.

2. Data and other specific descriptive information on functional skills, including behavior,

communication, motor, daily living or other skills related to school and age appropriate activities.

3. Defining specific needs that are a priority for the student’s learning or support in the general

education program.

4. Describing the impact of the characteristics of the student’s disability on his/her performance and

access to the general education curriculum and setting which will lead to decisions on supports,

accommodations and modifications that are necessary for the student’s participation in general

education instruction and activities.

OBSERVATION An observation conducted during any early intervening period may be used and must be properly

documented by the evaluation team. If, however, an observation has not been conducted prior to the referral

and request for evaluation or additional observation data is needed, the evaluation team must conduct an

observation and must properly document the observation.

An observation:

must address academic performance and behavior;

must be conducted in the child's learning environment as determined by the evaluation team;

must be conducted in the general education setting unless the child is less than school age or out of

school

The observation must be scheduled at a time when the child is engaged in the specific area of need identified

in the evaluation plan. Existing observations must have been conducted while the child was engaged in the

specific area of need identified in the evaluation plan.

The federal regulations and the MARSE do not prescribe the type of observation to be conducted; the

following methods may be appropriate:

behavioral observation procedures that result in quantifiable results (e.g., event recording, the

sampling, interval recording);

methods that relate student's classroom behavior to instructional conditions;

informal or anecdotal recordings that address referral questions, instructional practice, and

instructional fidelity.

These observations may also help to document that appropriated instruction was provided, and will assist in

recommending instructional changes. Observations across instructional settings (e.g., different classes) are

especially valuable, as are observations by different team members.

22

1. The new regulations (300.309(a)(2)(ii) state: “The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance,

achievement, or both, related to age, State approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability, using appropriate assessments, consistent with 300.304 and 300.305.” (300.304) describes assessment requirements and 300.305 describes the evaluation planning process.)

2. Definitions: Performance – actual performance in the classroom, as assessed by the student’s in-class assessment results,

grades, teacher anecdotes and observations. Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) – direct assessment of requisite academic skills needed to access the

curriculum (e.g., DIBELS, AIMSweb). Progress monitoring data – data collected from a curriculum-based measurement tool (e.g., DIBELS,

AIMSweb) over the course of weeks or months to track change in student performance. Criterion-referenced assessment – assessment of mastery of content. Unlike curriculum-based measurement,

criterion-referenced assessments measure how well students have learned subject material that they were taught (e.g., GLAD, MEAP, MME, classroom tests).

Curriculum Assessments – assessment of mastery of content (may be used interchangeably with criterion-referenced assessment).

Norm-referenced achievement tests – diagnostic assessments of academic skills that provide normative comparisons to other students throughout the country (e.g., Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement, TerraNova, Brigance).

Intellectual development – the student’s cognitive and functional skills, as assessed by IQ tests, functional skill surveys, interviews, and observations.

3. When to use ‘patterns of strengths and weaknesses’ to determine eligibility: When a school does not have the capacity to implement Tier 2 or Tier 3 interventions. In learning disability areas in which the school does not have a 3-tier intervention process. For example, a

school may use the 3-tier intervention process for reading and math, but not for writing, oral expression or listening comprehension.

In grades in which the school does not use a 3-tier intervention process. For example, a school may use a 3-tier process in grades K – 6, but not in grades 7 – 12.

4. Eligibility assurances for using ‘patterns of strengths and weaknesses’ to determine SLD eligibility: The information for determination was drawn from a variety of sources, and determination of impairment is

not due to limited English proficiency or lack of instruction in reading and math. The student was provided appropriate instruction by qualified personnel in the general education setting. The student was provided repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals with data-based

documentation available and provided to parents. This student exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both relative to

his/her age, intellectual development or state approved grade level standards. This student has a suspected disability in at least one of the following areas (Check all that apply)

Oral expression Reading comprehension Math calculation Listening comprehension Basic reading skills Math problem solving Written expression Reading fluency

The eligibility of a Specific Learning Disability (SLD) is NOT PRIMARILY the result of any of the following: A visual, hearing, or motor handicap or cognitive impairment, emotional impairment, or autism spectrum disorder, environment, cultural, or economic disadvantage.

The suspected disability adversely affects this student's educational performance and requires special education

Local Guidance for Determining SLD Eligibility Using ‘Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses’

Eastern Upper Peninsula Intermediate School District

315 Armory Place, P.O. Box 883 Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783

906 632-3373

23

5. Other Notes: When using the ‘Charting the Patterns of Strengths and weaknesses’ page, a student shall have at least 4

weak boxes checked and at least one other academic area considered a strength (with at least 3 boxes checked as being a strength) and/or the intellectual/functional box checked as a strength to be considered eligible for special education services. The IEP team shall determine if the student’s weaknesses warrant special education services.

When determining age-based achievement and performance, the evaluator should consider whether or not the student has received appropriate instruction for those age-based skills. For example, can a student retained in second grade be compared with third grade student if that student never received third grade instruction?

If the student’s weak areas are primarily in performance rather than in achievement (i.e., the student has the academic skill, but does not do the work in the classroom), then the school should consider different types of interventions other than academic (e.g., motivation).